If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Oh, that the folks like Holly Adams were as boisterous as the professional victims Goddard and Haas. Maybe hearing the public hearing the other side could be effective to deter the nimrods who jeopardize students' lives.

Is it enough to hope that for now that at least the victim's lawsuit is not throttled to $100k so the universities see some dire financial consequence?

Oh, that the folks like Holly Adams were as boisterous as the professional victims Goddard and Haas. Maybe hearing the public hearing the other side could be effective to deter the nimrods who jeopardize students' lives.

Is it enough to hope that for now that at least the victim's lawsuit is not throttled to $100k so the universities see some dire financial consequence?

I think to get any real legislation through, the SCCC people need to get students registered to vote, then vocal about wanting it.

To be honest, the JMU SCCC people are the only ones that have impressed me so far.
I just don't think this will go very far being pushed by non academia alone.

I don't see where § 18.2-308(o) prohibits anything. The plain text meaning I understand it to say is simply that the possession of a CHP does not give you the authority to ignore either a) existing laws or b) the wishes of a private property owner. It is the "otherwise prohibited by law" or the "prohibited by owner" that do the prohibiting, this paragraph just clearly states that a CHP does not override those already existing prohibitions.

O. The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.

I don't see where § 18.2-308(o) prohibits anything. The plain text meaning I understand it to say is simply that the possession of a CHP does not give you the authority to ignore either a) existing laws or b) the wishes of a private property owner. It is the "otherwise prohibited by law" or the "prohibited by owner" that do the prohibiting, this paragraph just clearly states that a CHP does not override those already existing prohibitions.

Exactly ... And since properly promulgated regulations have the force and effect of LAW, any regulation that is passed automatically trumps concealed carry. AND ... since administrative agencies are not covered by preemption, there is nothing to stop them ... AND ... Commonwealth-operated colleges and universities have fast-track regulatory authority under the VAPA. The deck is well and truly stacked against us. We need to start unravelling the threads one at a time!

I don't see where § 18.2-308(o) prohibits anything. The plain text meaning I understand it to say is simply that the possession of a CHP does not give you the authority to ignore either a) existing laws or b) the wishes of a private property owner. It is the "otherwise prohibited by law" or the "prohibited by owner" that do the prohibiting, this paragraph just clearly states that a CHP does not override those already existing prohibitions.

TFred

§ 18.2-308(O) was a "Governor's Recommendation" of George Allen. So, what was his intent?